Some of the networks wisely determined that the speech was unfounded, baseless, and harmful. News networks do not need to be a spigot for outright lies and fabrication.
This election has proven that US, but also Western-European media are extremely biased and see themselves as the arbiters of truth. Reading German media I noticed - without exaggeration - that Trump was getting worse press than actual real dictators. Mainstream German newspapers had articles where they invited mental health specialists to speculate on what mental afflictions Trump might be suffering from.
Extremely unethical show from the mainstream media.
Why? Not only has this never been the case, it is also strictly impossible to report news with zero bias, because the world is a messy place with a lot of concurrent things happening and media has to weave a mostly linear story from that. There's no algorithmic way to do that.
Imagine a large protest. Most people protest peacefully. A small group of protestors riot. The police are there too. Mostly they just watch, but some of them engage with protestors who they suspect of rioting, and some of those cops use arguably excessive violence.
You're making the TV news bulletin, you have footage of all of these sub-events. You have to decide how much time to allocate to each of the sub-events. You have a big responsibility, because the amount of attention you pay to each of them may influence public opinion. Do you focus on the peaceful protest? Or on the rioting? Or on the police violence? What's the "objectively" right amount of time to spend on each of these sub-events?
I'm not sure what the "right" amount of time is; that's an incredibly difficult thing to determine--probably impossible in fact. But I certainly, trivially, know what the "wrong" amount of time would be: zero. If a reporter doesn't find some non-zero balance between those three perspectives, they have utterly failed in their role as a journalist. Eliding any of those events doesn't reduce bias, it effectively maximizes it.
With regards to journalism, the obvious rule is that you're supposed to impartially talk to both sides: the priest and the skeptic, the corporation and the union, the president and the challenger, the victim and the rapist. I'm not complaining that people aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing perfectly; I'm complaining that world-class news organizations with (formerly, I guess) serious credibility like the NY Times are blatantly not even trying to be objective anymore. They're not following basic, basic rules of journalism that literally children know to do (and would be penalized on their homework for not doing). For example, how is it reasonable to run a story like, "celebrity X sparks outrage on twitter with racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever tweet", without ever printing or even linking to what X actually said! How can you run a story on the response to some event without any context on the event itself?
We're not at the point where networks allocate less time to certain topics, we're at the point where media organizations have decided that for certain topics there is one and only one valid opinion and they're telling people how to think. This is essentially propaganda.
Impartial coverage is important, but neutral reporting is dangerous. Good journalism requires analyzing evidence, not treating all opposing views as equal (false balance).
When evidence is clear (such as in the case of the safety of vaccinations, the role humans play in climate change, etc.), "neutral reporting" can be misleading or even damaging.
It's the responsibility of journalists to help their audience understand view points, but that doesn't require giving them equal weight.
For example, in the case of vaccinations it's important to acknowledge that vaccinations were at one point believed to be linked to developmental disorders, that the study which did so has been debunked, and that the consensus of the medical community is now clear: there is no link between vaccines and autism.
The same holds true in the context of an election. For example, journalists should be (and, in many case, are) explaining that while some believe that votes were cast or counted illegally, no evidence of this has been presented. While it appeared that Biden "took the lead" after election day, this was an illusion resulting from the way in which the Republican legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania caused votes to be counted: they did not allow counting of mail ballots to begin earlier, despite knowing that record numbers would be received this year, and despite knowing that mail ballots would favor Democrats. While convincing reasons were presented for these decisions, such as earlier counting posing problems for volunteer election inspectors, it had predictable effects on the time period over votes were tallied and it is disingenuous for Trump to refer to these as "surprise ballot dumps" and either willfully ignorant or intentionally misleading for him to attempt to claim victory on election night before these ballots had been counted.
They are at some level. Of course, a newspaper isn't going to present all sources as being of equal authority. If someone is spouting nonsense at some point you cut them off.
Sure, it happened to Trump this time because it was telling lies.
But imagine what would happen if they did the same to a president who was telling truths that the network didn’t like.
It’s about the power that allows the act, not the act itself.
On the other hand, there has never been an era when individuals had as much ability to male their voices heard or, for better or worse, such diversity of news (and "news") sources.
There's also the fact that Twitter is a platform and not a publication. And there are certainly questions of what happens when dominant platforms that control access to eyeballs start regulating what people can people can publish there according to reality as it exists for the tech world.
Should every TV station be required to air every public servant's statements? Surely going to the source isn't too big of a burden for most.
Feel free to watch the whole thing. No one is stopping you.
There is a difference between censorship and moderation. Trump was literally trolling on CNBC's platform, and they chose to confront that.
Most mainstream media has been pushing the well known hoax about "fine people on both sides" being about white supremacists for far too long to have much credibility left when wanting to point out others unfounded, baseless and harmful lies.